Senate Bill 561, styled the
"Louisiana Academic Freedom
Act," was prefiled in the
Louisiana Senate by state senator
Ben Nevers (D–District 12) on
March 21, 2008, and provisionally
assigned to the Senate Education
Committee, of which Nevers is the
chair. In name, the bill is similar to
the so-called academic freedom
bills in Florida, House Bill 1483 and
Senate Bill 2692, which are evidently
based on a string of similar
bills in Alabama as well as on a
model bill that the Discovery
Institute's Center for Science and
Culture, the institutional home of
"intelligent design" creationism,
recently began to promote. But in
its content, Louisiana's SB 561
seems to be modeled instead on a
controversial policy adopted by a
local school board in 2006 with
the backing of the Louisiana Family
Forum.

The Ouachita Parish School
Board's policy permits teachers to
help students to understand "the
scientific strengths and weaknesses
of existing scientific theories pertinent
to the course being taught";
"biological evolution, the chemical
origins of life, global warming and
human cloning" are the only topics
specifically mentioned. A local
paper editorially described it as "a
policy that is so clear that one
School Board member voted affirmatively
while adding, 'but I don't
know what I'm voting on'"
(Monroe News-Star, 2006 Dec 3;
see RNCSE 2006 Nov/Dec; 26 [6]:
8–11).

The controversy over the policy
was renewed in September 2007,
when Senator David Vitter
(R–Louisiana) sought to earmark
$100 000 of federal funds to the
Louisiana Family Forum. The New
Orleans Times-Picayune (2007
Sep 22) reported that the money
was intended to "pay for a report
suggesting 'improvements' in science
education in Louisiana, the
development and distribution of
educational materials and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the
Ouachita Parish School Board's
2006 policy that opened the door
to biblically inspired teachings in
science classes." Thanks to pressure
from NCSE and its allies, Vitter
withdrew his proposal in the following
month (see RNCSE 2007
Sep–Dec; 27 [5–6]: 9–12).

Now SB 561 echoes the central
language of the Ouachita Parish
School Board's policy. Contending
that "the teaching of some scientific
subjects, such as biological evolution,
the chemical origins of life,
global warming, and human
cloning, can cause controversy, and
that some teachers may be unsure
of the expectations concerning
how they should present information
on such subjects," the bill
extends permission to Louisiana's
teachers to "help students understand,
analyze, critique, and review
in an objective manner the scientific
strengths and scientific weaknesses
of existing scientific theories pertinent
to the course being taught."

Unlike the policy, the bill contains
directives aimed at state and
local education administrators,
who are instructed to "endeavor to
create an environment within public
elementary and secondary
schools that encourages students
to explore scientific questions,
learn about scientific evidence, to
help students develop critical
thinking skills, and respond appropriately
and respectfully to differences
of opinion about controversial
issues" and to "endeavor to
assist teachers to find more effective
ways to present the science
curriculum where it addresses scientific
controversies." Administrators
are also instructed not to "censor
or suppress in any way any
writing, document, record, or other
content of any material which references"
the listed topics.

Attempting to immunize itself
against a likely challenge to its constitutionality,
the bill also claims to
protect only "the teaching of scientific
information," adding that it
"shall not be construed to promote
any religious doctrine, promote
discrimination for or against a particular
set of religious beliefs, or
promote discrimination for or
against religion or non-religion."
The involvement of the Louisiana
Family Forum — which seeks to
"persuasively present biblical principles
in the centers of influence on issues affecting the family
through research, communication
and networking" — managed, however, to provoke a careful scrutiny
of the intent of the bill's backers.

Writing in the Times-Picayune
(2008 Mar 30), the columnist James
Gill observed that SB 561 is based
on "the spurious premise that evolution
is a matter of serious scientific
debate and that both sides are
entitled to a hearing. A lot of people
have fallen for that line, including
Gov Bobby Jindal, although, of
course, scientists, save a few stray
zealots, regard the evidence for evolution
as overwhelming." He also
drew attention to a particularly
problematic provision of SB 561
directing administrators not to "censor
or suppress in any way any writing,
document, record, or other content
of any material"referring to the
topics covered by the bill, which he
described as "a license for crackpots."
Gill concluded, "The bill is of
no conceivable benefit to anyone
but Christian proselytizers. Besides,
its genesis is plainly sectarian."

A day after the legislative session
began on March 31, 2008, the
sponsor of SB 561 was in the
news, denying that the so-called
academic freedom bill would pave
the way for creationism to be
taught in the state's public schools.
According to the Baton Rouge
Advocate (2008 Apr 1), Nevers
said, "I believe that students should
be exposed to both sides of scientific
data and allow them to make
their own decisions," adding, "I
think the bill perfectly explains
that it deals with any scientific subject
matter which is taught in our
public school system." The bill in
fact specifically identifies "biological
evolution, the chemical origins
of life, global warming, and human
cloning" as controversial subjects,
and calls on state and local education
administrators to "endeavor to
assist teachers to find more effective
ways to present the science
curriculum where it addresses scientific
controversies."

Nevers acknowledged that he
introduced SB 561 at the behest of
the Louisiana Family Forum. A religious
right group with a long history
of promoting creationism and
attacking evolution education in
the state, the LFF claims that it
"promotes 'Teaching the
Controversy' when it comes to
matters such as biologicial [sic]
evolution"; yet it elsewhere recommends
a variety of young-earth and
"intelligent design" websites,
including the Institute for Creation
Research, the Foundation for
Thought and Ethics, and Kent
Hovind's Creation Science
Evangelism, on its own website.
Unsurprisingly, then, the executive
director of Americans United for
Separation of Church and State, the
Reverend Barry Lynn, told the
Advocate, "This is all about God in
biology class."

Speaking later to the Hammond Daily Star (2008 Aprl
6), Nevers was less cautious in
explaining the purpose of the bill.
The newspaper reported, "The
Louisiana Family Forum suggested
the bill, Nevers said. 'They believe
that scientific data related to creationism
should be discussed
when dealing with Darwin's theory.
This would allow the discussion
of scientific facts,' Nevers said. 'I
feel the students should know
there are weaknesses and
strengths in both scientific arguments.'"
The article itself was headlined
"Bill allows teaching creationism
as science."

Barbara Forrest, a professor of
philosophy at Southeastern
Louisiana University who serves
on NCSE's board of directors, told
the Daily Star, "If the citizens and
public officials of Louisiana are
serious about improving both the
state's image and public schools,
we cannot afford to waste valuable
time and resources on legislation
like SB 561. Such battles consume
the energies and attention of productive
citizens who must take
time from their jobs and personal
affairs to counteract creationist
attacks on their school systems."

Before the bill received a committee
hearing, the Shreveport Times (2008 Apr 14) took a firm
editorial stand against it, writing,
"Even though it is presented with
an attractive title and couched in
the newest terms, Senate Bill 561 is
not in the best interest of students,
educators or religious leaders. It
would open the door for high
school science class curricula and
discussions concerning matters
best left to individual faith, families
and religious institutions. The bill
proposes bad law that has been
tried before and has been struck
down repeatedly by the courts,"
and concluding, "Religious doctrine
and the science classroom
must remain separate, and SB 561
should be ditched in committee."

But it was not to be. Renamed
the "Louisiana Science Education
Act," the bill passed the Louisiana
Senate Education Committee on
April 17, 2008, despite the testimony
of what the Times-Picayune
(2008 Apr 18) described as "a bank
of witnesses" who "blasted the proposed
Louisiana Science Education
Act as a back-door attempt to inject
the biblical story of creation into
the classroom." The Advocate
(2008 Apr 18) reported that William
Hansel, a scientist at Louisiana State
University's Pennington Biomedical
Research Center, told the committee, "nearly all scientists oppose passage
of this bill," adding that if enacted,
the bill "will be seized upon as
one more piece of evidence that
Louisiana is a backward state by
those who have popularized this
image of our state."

Before its passage, the bill was
not only renamed but also renumbered
(as SB 733) and revised, with
the removal of the "strengths and
weaknesses" language and the list
of specific scientific topics. Even
the sanitized version of the bill is
likely to continue to spark controversy,
owing to its creationist
antecedents, from which its supporters
may be unable to disentangle
themselves. For example, David
Tate, a supporter of the bill who
serves on the Livingston Parish
School Board, told the Times-Picayune, "I believe that both sides
— the creationism side and the
evolution side — should be presented
and let students decide
what they believe," and added that
the bill is needed because "teachers
are scared to talk about" creation.

The Advocate (2008 Apr 19)
editorially agreed that the
antecedents of the bill were problematic,
writing, "it seems clear
that the supporters of this legislation
are seeking a way to get creationism
— the story of creation as
told in the biblical book of Genesis
— into science classrooms."
Acknowledging the revisions of
the bill, the editorial commented,
"At this point, the wording of the bill seems more symbol than substance.
But its implication — that
real science is somehow being stifled
in Louisiana's classrooms —
does not seem grounded in actual
fact. This kind of rhetorical grandstanding
is a needless distraction
from the real problems the
Legislature should be addressing."

Speaking to the Advocate (2008
Apr 20), the executive director of
the Louisiana Family Forum, Gene
Mills, expressed disappointment at
the revisions to the bill: "We want
an explicit expression," he said.
"We wanted to hang out a sign that
said academic inquiries welcomed."
He described his support
of the revised bill as now only
lukewarm, even though Nevers
told the newspaper that the revisions
"didn't change the intent of
the bill." However, Barbara Forrest
commented, "The bill itself is still a
very problematic bill, a stealth creationism
bill," explaining, "The
strategy now is to sanitize the terminology,
which is what they did
with the original bill and which
they are doing now."

Subsequently, however, the bill
was partly unsanitized. As the
Advocate (2008 Apr 29) reported,
"In a key change, the Senate
approved an amendment by
Nevers that spells out examples of
those theories, including evolution,
the origins of life, global
warming and human cloning. That
language was removed from the
bill earlier this month at the
request of critics before it was
approved by the Senate Education
Committee, which Nevers chairs."
Also added was a provision requiring
teachers to use the textbook
provided by the local school system;
it was apparently feared that
otherwise teachers might use only
the supplemental textbooks that
the bill would, if enacted, allow
them to use "to help students
understand, analyze, critique, and
review scientific theories in an
objective manner." The language
about "strengths and weaknesses"
was not restored. The Senate
passed the amended bill by a vote
of 35 to 0.

SB 733 was sent to the House of
Representatives on April 29, 2008,
and referred to its Committee on
Education. A version of the same
bill, HB 1168, was previously introduced in the House on April 21,
2008, and referred to the same committee.
Its sponsor, Frank A Hoffman
(R–District 15) was formerly the
assistant superintendent of the
Ouachita Parish School System,
which in 2006 adopted the controversial
policy on which HB 1168
and SB 561/733 are based. The
Advocate (2008 May 1) expressed
editorial concern about the
prospects of the legislation, writing,
"The 35–0 vote on this issue suggests
few senators have the inclination
or will to stand up to the religious
right in defense of sound science
in the classroom. It's quite possible
this bill also will be approved
in the House and end up on
[Governor Bobby] Jindal's desk."